Taking ITER for example, it's being built in France where they have very strong nuclear safety rules. There's a section on safety here.
etc.
Nuclear Fusion - So, how we doing?
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
Taking ITER for example, it's being built in France where they have very strong nuclear safety rules. There's a section on safety here.
etc.
???!?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
I have more interest in thorium reactor research. That's a tech that look promising and actually feasible on a large enough scale.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Cold fusion is impossible.
Space travel:
If we could make a viable reactor, we would have to engineer a small and physically durable one to not need an maintenance/fixing after accelerating off the ground. We would also need to come up with some miracle methods for magnetic and plasma confinement without causing the rocket to weigh as much as a skyscraper with the reactor.
Dangerous:
Why would fusion experiments be dangerous, also why is LHC dangerous?
How would you even begin to build this stuff in space? The funding and attention for fusion is considerable but not enough to successfully create a viable and stable reactor for practical use any time soon, i don't think trying to develop one in the most impractical place possible would make it easier.
The fear is much with this one.
I don't fear it. I actualy wish they would rush a bit more I want to see this tech before I die.
I may have mixed fusion and fission.
Maybe we need to take a leap and make space more feasible.
We all know this stuff isn't going to take off until all fossil fuels are gone.
I may have mixed fusion and fission.
Maybe we need to take a leap and make space more feasible.
We all know this stuff isn't going to take off until all fossil fuels are gone.
Problems easily overcome by building them in space, whilst keeping a conventional rocket to the space station.
That or a space elevator of course
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Building on in space raises just another set of impossible problems. We shouldn't be looking at doing stuff like this in space until we make some significant advancements on the ground. Building anything in space requires so much money/time and planning, it would be a waste of precious funding which we need to develop fusion before even considering its practical uses and application beyond power delivery.
Or would we just use a space elevator to get the materials and physicists up there?
Or would we just use a space elevator to get the materials and physicists up there?
I can see the Assembly Building from my office window. It's coming along quite nicely.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I thought thorium reactors was the future?
There is a huge difference between fission and fusions power tht makes fusion inherently safe. Basically in Fission power stations all the complexity is trying to stop a runaway fission process from turning the power station into an atomic bomb. The problem with Getting fusion power station viable is because it has the exact opposite problem, it sis really difficult to get the Fusion process to continue for more than a few seconds. All of the complexity in a Fusion reactor is in trying to maintain the fusion process, not prevent a runaway chain reaction.
it was for that reason why the very early research into nuclear power stations, before any fission stations existed commercially, was in to fusion reactors. It was deemed the safest and cleanest route, but ultimately is too safe, so safe it is almost impossible to make work at commercially viable efficiency.
Fusion bombs work by putting huge amounts of nuclear material together at once, don't do that and you have no bomb.
A stop gap until Fusion is viable, and a backup plan if Fusion is delayed further than estimated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Which is exactly what we need right about now
Unfortunately, Thorium reactors are themselves 10-20 years away. Everything is 20 years away when it comes to nuclear. Except bombs, they always have time for that.It was one of them command and conquer games that got me looking into cold fusion.
Just been reading on wiki that thorium reactors should be doable now. It said the first actual working one was being built in 2016. Not the research or anything it suggested that was all done and it was just for the way to build them for public use ( can't think of the proper term ).
Or is it? There was a lot of suppression of research into it when it originally hit the headlines, failures to reproduce, suppression, ad-hoc debunking and general witch-hunting of scientists willing to research this field followed. Yet it still exists and despite having funding and research continually suppressed by the major academia and publishers, it quietly flourishes and continues to attract new interest, especially by private investors.
A link to read if you are interested in the efforts of scientists to have their valid, scientific research be heard above the cries of abhorrence and disbelief http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/brian-josephson-pathological-disbelief/
Hot fusion is massively expensive and seems as though it's being used as an example by the energy industry to demonstrate that clean, efficient energy, is yet again, "impossible" (or extremely expensive still).
I view hot fusion, efficient, cheap, imminently available hot fusion anyway, to also be impossible in that case. But we shall see won't we?
Stupid title, somewhere in America a Christian group is going to take that literally as always and try and get it cancelled, 'just in case'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Theoretically impossible is different to practically impossible.
None of my lecturers or colleagues found the practical application of cold fusion feasible. Nothing I have seen or read would suggest otherwise. I would love it to be possible, it is thought of as a sort of holy grail within the industry, much like a cure all disease jab in medicine. No amount of media suppression or government discouragement would successfully silence the physics community if it was possible.
Possibly in the distant future when we wont even require cold fusion might we find a reliable method to apply the theory behind it, but i wouldn't hold my breath. There has been many false claims on cold fusion over the years. Countries who are quite obviously incapable of such technology are often the loudest preachers (North Korea, am Looking at you!)
None of my lecturers or colleagues found the practical application of cold fusion feasible. Nothing I have seen or read would suggest otherwise. I would love it to be possible, it is thought of as a sort of holy grail within the industry, much like a cure all disease jab in medicine. No amount of media suppression or government discouragement would successfully silence the physics community if it was possible.
Possibly in the distant future when we wont even require cold fusion might we find a reliable method to apply the theory behind it, but i wouldn't hold my breath. There has been many false claims on cold fusion over the years. Countries who are quite obviously incapable of such technology are often the loudest preachers (North Korea, am Looking at you!)
I couldn't take that site seriously as soon as I saw an article about psychic phenomina and Psi.
The Wendelstein 7-X fusion device before its first plasma
Next week: start with helium plasma planned / hydrogen plasmas are to follow in 2016
First plasma scheduled for 10 December!
Next week: start with helium plasma planned / hydrogen plasmas are to follow in 2016
First plasma scheduled for 10 December!